JWALES3@UA1VM.BITNET (Jimbo) (02/09/90)
Before I begin, a short note to John: I do not have any exact figures about worker-owned companies. I may take the research of that point on, right after my big rent control posting (Due tomorrow, or I lose a letter grade, right?) On Thu, 8 Feb 90 09:42:46 EST Jamie said: > >Look, I am not asking for legal restrictions a priori against >voluntary associations. You want legal protection for the capitalist >to exert control over the workplace. I want legal protection for >some control by the workers. I want no such thing! I want legal protection for negotiation of mutually acceptible terms. Who controls what time we come in and what time we get off work? Who controls what we will produce, and of what quantity? Why, we can organize these things in whatever way we like! >> If a democratic form of business organization is more profitable, >> businesses formed or reorganized accordingly will quickly dominate. >Leaving aside the question of to whom the organizations are more >profitable, I don't believe this. I don't even believe it if you >leave out the "quickly". Gee, then, I suppose we have reached a difficult impasse here. Tell me how it is that you think that companies which are less profitable will continue to dominate. Tell me how it is that companies which are more profitable will fail to dominate. I shall continue to gloss over the question of 'profitable for whom' until we settle this question of which type of companies will dominate in the marketplace. > >> 5> ESOP plans have worked in some companies, but have failed miserably >> in others. It has proven very difficult to make painful but necessary >> decisions when employees have a large say-so. This is the classic >> prisoner's dilemma type problem: if we lay off 100 workers, we can >> save 900 jobs. If we try to limp along with all 1000 workers, the >> company can not survive. > >Ah, that's not a prisoner's dilemma!!! Caught, you scoundrel. Ouch! It is painful to see myself make such a mistake. You are right. This is not a prisoner's dilemma. But anyhow, the main point may still stand: it has proven difficult for employees to vote for lay-offs, even when such lay-offs are by and large in thier own best interest. I must have had Larry's migraine when I wrote that! >Anyway, you are right that ESOP's have failed in many cases. That's >why I pointed out last time that they emerge in industries which >are in very bad shape ahead of time. That's how they get a wedge >in. I fail to understand this statement. I claim that ESOP's have failed in many cases, while they have succeeded in others. To me, this is a clear signal that different business structures are needed in different circumstances (thus necessitating a legislative 'hands-off'). > >I am surprised you don't know this, since your hero Ken Galbraith >has written about it extensively. I'll ask him to send you some >info, and maybe even an autographed copy of his new book! Oh, how wonderful. While you are at it, I guess you could send him a bound collection of the insults I have thrown his way! :-) I guess I can mark Harvard off my list of job prospects... sigh... >*****Jamie***** $$$$$Jimbo$$$$$ (note that $ are a renewable resource, since the govt' can 'print more up') :-)